lmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow) (10/09/89)
Okay, since they can't police themselves, how about we decide if it's
junk for them...
Talk.religion.newage was a nice group (lots of discussion, but somewhat
informational), a group where something actually got done. Right now,
sci.skeptic is just a pain in the ***. I don't have 1000 blocks for my
KILL file, which is about the size it would be if I bothered to use it.
The material that's been coming across the group has an abysmal quality
level - talk.rumor-monger.unknown would be a better title for what's been
coming across...
I think we've given the group enough time to show its colors...rather
than create yet another group, how about just renaming the sucker to
where it belongs...a sci.* group that's 80% noise (by your own estimate)
is way out-of-line. At least in talk.* it fits the description.
Also, since we're going to have to re-vote, how about taking new age
topics out and putting them back where they seem to do better. I'll put
up with a lot of bull (I'm not one of those timid new-agers - I know how
to deal with taking a few lumps), but I'm not up for weeding through 100
articles every other day to find 2 or 3 that I like reading. New Age
topics belong in talk.religion.newage, not a conglomeration group...
Anyone else?
--
Les Barstow **All of the paths work!!!!**
LMB7421@RITVAX.BITNET lmb7421@{ultb,vaxa,vaxb,vaxc,vaxd}.isc.rit.edu
UUCP: ...rutgers!rochester!rit!ultb!lmb7421
LENSMAN@DRYCAS.BITNET lensman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edudoug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (10/10/89)
In article <4319@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic >>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. > >Well let's make talk.skeptic and move the other 80% out of sci.*... Once again, don't be silly. This suffers from the same flaw as your comment about the establishment of *.flame. People very, very rarely flame in *.flame _rather_ than in the original newsgroup. If you establish talk.skeptic, it will only move about 5% of the traffic. It may simultaneously create new traffic in larger volume than we're seeing here... Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4287@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I think it's time to create a talk.skeptic, for the old chestnuts, and if this >leaves sci.skeptic empty so be it. Go for it Peter! Have some Gall! Brian
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic >would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. One man's Crap is another man's goldmine. Talk."sckeptic" is full of "gold". Brian
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4208@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >Oh well, another good idea shot to hell... > >The point is that we cannot trust everyone to police themselves >according to our tastes. Leave everything as it is. KILL files work >quite well I hear. RMGROUPS work even better. Brian
wsdwgk@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (g.v.rooij) (10/11/89)
In article <19920@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) writes: ->In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: ->>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic ->>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. -> ->One man's Crap is another man's goldmine. Talk."sckeptic" is full of "gold". -> ->Brian - I agree. I like to read it, so hands off please... Guido